Krugman's Attacks On Obama Suggest That GOP's Economic Proposals Are Better (Cheaper Failure)

[Median Democrat]

Krugman has attacked Obama's stimulus plan as inadequate, as well as Obama's failure to immediately nationalize the banks. Krugman indicates that Obama's policies are unlikely to lift the nation out of recession. In other words, Obama's economic plan is destined to fail.

The Republican propose to freeze federal spending and simply let large banks fail. This will be far cheaper than Obama's plan, though these proposals will also fail to lift the nation out of recession.

However, based on Krugman's analysis, since both Obama's plan will fail and the GOP plan will fail, isn't the rational approach to embrace the economic plan that will fail cheaply? Why spend billions on failure when you can fail for much less?

Indeed, Krugman has never compared the GOP economic proposals to Obama's economic plans, which I assume is because they both are dismal failures, therefore perhaps we should avoid increasing the deficit by adopting the GOP proposal of a spending freeze and letting banks fail.

It is notable that there is no discussion by the media, including Krugman, of the pros and cons of the Republican proposals in comparison to Obama's proposals.

If Obama's plan and the GOP plan are both destined to failure, then at least fail in the cheapest manner possible.

[Captain Hilts]

1. No, no they don't. nt

[PM7nj]

2. Umm... what?

I'm not one of Krugman's fans, but this is the craziest thing I've read today...

[hlthe2b]

3. Darlin... somewhere it appears that you totally missed the point....

Others will engage you on this, I'm sure...gotta get back to the salt mines...;)

[Median Democrat]

6. I Have Looked For An Analysis Or Reasoned Response To GOP Proposals. None.

At most, they get a summary response of they will fail. Okay. So, how do they compare to Obama's proposals, which have also been condemned as a failure by the left? It would be nice to hear some response on this point. Heck, CNBC and Fox News are pushing the GOP proposals, and no one on the left is bothering to respond.

If you are going to get your ass handed to you, then why not do so in the cheapest manner possible?

[hlthe2b]

8. NONE of the preeminent Economists agree that spending freezes

will do anything other than lead to catastrophic destruction of (what's left of) our economy. That includes Krugman. On the CNBC and Faux news you have such preeminent "experts" as Cramer and his ilk who were denying ANY problems in the economy and still telling everyone to buy Bear Stearns.... Yeah, let's just listen to the idiots who brought us this disaster--who have lined their pockets throughout. No thanks...


P.S. I really do believe in the wisdom of my sigline. Any good biography of FDR and the depression will tell you that what the RW is preaching is what led to the great depression of the 30s to begin with.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. He wrote several article comparing Clinton's and Obama's health plans during the primaries

You would have thought that no Republican candidate had one. Finally, he wrote ONE article criticizing McCain's trainwreck of a plan. He's doing the same thing now. And yes, I realize that the Dems are in charge so the GOP plan shouldn't even be relevant but the reality is the pukes are dominating the discourse in the MSM so it's only right that their proposal should be analyzed.

[Captain Hilts]

10. No one is interested in the Republicans program as it was clear McCain would not win.

It would have been like talking about a dead horse.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Nice try. eom

[Captain Hilts]

16. It's been clear since '06 our side was going to win.

And surveys showed people trusted Dems more than Rs on this issue.

I was in political polling for 8 years.

[Captain Hilts]

11. No one is interested in what they have to say. Bush and the R Congress blew it. They had 6 years.

They're on the bench ridin' the pine now. Spectators.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Right.

That's why they're on TV all the time.

[Median Democrat]

46. Exactly, The Mainstream Media Is Giving Them Hours Of Coverage...

Yet, so-called liberal commentators like Krugman are way too important to respond or explain why Obama's program is at least better than what is being offered by the Republicans?

[Telly Savalas]

50. After we get folks like Krugman to explain why Obama's plans are better than the GOP

maybe we can organize a panel of physicists and health professionals to explain why jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is a bad idea.

[Kalyke]

4. No they don't.

I think it's just assumed that a spending freeze is asinine and insane; therefore, no one even comments on the GOPs idea of, well, a spending freeze.

[camera obscura]

5. Krugman never attacks Republican proposals? Then what do you call this?

"A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html

"I’m as cynical as they come. Even so, I’m shocked by the total intellectual collapse of the Republican Party in the face of this economic crisis."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/party-of-uh-huh-huh-huh/

"As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html

[Median Democrat]

7. Exactly, He Says The GOP Plans Are Failures As Is Obama's Plan

If both the GOP plans and Obama's plan sucks, then why not choose the cheapest sucky plan?

Krugman is condemning both to failure, thus the rationale response is to choose the cheaper failure.

[camera obscura]

21. It is not a black-and-white issue and Krugman does not treat it as such.

He never said Obama is as bad as the Republicans. He said that Obama's plan isn't strong enough.

What, should he pretend Obama's plan is perfect, so nobody figures it's as bad as the Republican plan? That's the kind of dumbed-down, us versus them thinking that mangled the Republican party.

[Jakes Progress]

82. Give it up.

You are arguing with the purity league. They believe, like george, that you either support them in everything in every way.....or you're with the terrists.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Far as I'm concerned......with a demented media in charge of messaging,

Republicans being the partisan obstructionists regardless of what, and those in the professional community of economics who should be aiming their ire at them, this shit is about to get out of control, and we may just well be best served by bending over and kissing each other's asses goodbye!

In essense that is the "Muddled" message getting out there that Warren Buffett was talking about. He specifically stated that this is an economic war, and we'd be better off getting behind the CIC instead of shooting him down at every chance gotten.

Far as Krugman and the Krugmanphiles are concerned, if you ain't helping, then get off the mike!

[Median Democrat]

19. I Admit, I Am Playing Devil's Advocate, Just Pointing Out The GOP Getting A Free Pass...

Even from the left, which sometimes fails to take them seriously until it is too late. In this case, if folks in the know like Krugman continue to ignore the GOP, the 2010 elections and their proposals to cut spending and let banks fails could become reality, because we never took the time to explain why such ideas are crazy. We simply assumed that the typical voter would know better, thus we never bothered to explain.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. We didn't proclaim a king, we elected a President

He seems perfectly capable of taking criticism, learning from it and adjusting; would that his more ardent acolytes could.

The idea of this thread is to lump all criticism of the President's policies together, even when they're diametrically opposed and dismiss them out of hand as some kind of heretical collusion. That's not going to help anyone. It may not be obvious to some, but it's obvious to many of us that the administration doesn't quite know what to do in this situation. That's not a crime; a crime would be to flatly state that one DOES have all the answers when one is aware that one doesn't.

[alwysdrunk]

13. There will be a second stimulus

Win't be as easy as the first to get it passed but there will be one. Krugman says the first one was too small, there will be another one to get it back up to a decent size to match the job market.

Bank nationalization? That i don't see happening. Geihtner and his team are all too much bankers at heart for that to happen. They can't even begin to process that idea it seems to me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. WHAT is Krugman's plan????

:shrug:

I'm not an economist nor do I have any clue as to whether Obama's plan will work- or even who's plan WILL work but if Krugman has some ideas that he'd like to share with us then.............

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. And this point it appears to involve nationalizing the banks.

Which, of course, would require an act of congress. Which, of course, would never happen.

[CAcyclist]

29. Why would it take an act of congress? Banks are nationalized frequently

in this country - sixteen since the start of January, according to the Sheila Bair interview on 60 minutes.

It's just that the political will is not there to do to big banks what needs to be done.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Problem is in Krugman's world, congress doesn't exist except for when he wants them to.

that's the biggest flaw with his analysis.

[11cents]

35. Did you read the article?

He talks specifically about the danger that if Obama doesn't act now, when he has both the public and Congress behind him, he may not be able to get necessary stimulus through Congress later when the political situation may have changed.

Krugman is trying to be helpful. Blind cheerleading when you think something's going badly amiss isn't helpful, it's Bushful.

[liberal1973]

20. lol

"Why spend billions on failure when you can fail for much less"

:wtf: :dunce: :rofl: :rofl: :beer: :eyes: freeper wannabe?

[Uzybone]

23. Thats a large stretch

Krugman has laughed off the GOP plans as non starters. No economist worth anything will waste anytime debating the GOP plans. It'll be like a physicist debating the existence of gravity with a child.

[FrenchieCat]

25. During a crisis that depends on the confidence of uninformed public

that were talked into a war that didn't have to happen, who voted for economic policies that were against their best interest, assuming that anyone knows anymore than a child is foolhearty, and arrogant at best.

[Uzybone]

27. I've been beyond tired of Krugmans carping from the sidelines too

but its a bit disingenuous to say he is advocating for the GOP plan because he is whining about Obamas. Krugman has been solidly against the GOP plans from day one. I don't really expect him to continue to write about GOP plans, because it wont raise his profile to write about crap.

[uberllama42]

24. Any fair-minded person who reads Krugman knows that he thinks

the Republican lack-of-a-plan is horrible. He has criticized the know-nothing, do-nothing GOP ideology numerous times. Have you read his column from today?

Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least. It’s a credible promise — his economists used solidly mainstream estimates of the impacts of tax and spending policies. But 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month.

Far from condemning the stimulus as an inevitable failure, Krugman says it will succeed in reaching its stated goal, but that that goal is too modest. This is starkly different from saying that Obama's efforts are as worthless as what Republicans are proposing. Why should he make a detailed examination of the "do nothing" strategy? All it takes is to point out that doing nothing won't help.

Later on, Krugman writes:

Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes — which they always want to do regardless of circumstances. If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they’ll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.

What Krugman is saying is that, six months from now, the Republicans will claim that the stimulus failed and that that will not be true. He has consistently said that the Republicans are wrong to oppose the stimulus, and here he is saying that they will be wrong if they oppose additional stimulus in the future.

You look like you're working hard to be outraged at what Krugman has to say, but I think he's right on.

[FrenchieCat]

26. You got some links for those excerpts?

[uberllama42]

42. Today's column

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html

Should have linked in the first place.

[Sparkly]

47. The OP should have linked it in the first place.

What does it say when you have to link to the article under (supposed) discussion all day?!

[Lilith Velkor]

62. It's easier to just make shit up.

[hay rick]

28. All failures not the same.

Krugman has criticized Obama's stimulus as inadequate while rejecting the Republican alternatives as unrealistic. He wants Obama to do more of the same (with less emphasis on tax cuts). He believes the failure or inability to do more will lead to a deeper and more prolonged recession. At the same time, I'm sure he would tell you that a Republican-style stimulus plan of all tax cuts would have even worse results.

If the Obama plan bottoms out at $12T GDP and 10% unemployment, the Republican plan could look more like $10T GDP and 20% unemployment. Neither result good, but not the same either. Tax cuts may "cost less" in the short term but they will result in a smaller, weaker economy that costs more (through lost output) in the long run.

[Median Democrat]

31. In My Gut, I Agree With You, But There Is Absolutely Nothing Out There...

Providing such a comparison. The problem I see with Krugman, and other commentators on the left, who neglect to address the Republican alternatives, is that there constant one-sided attacks set up a vote everyone out attack in 2010 where the GOP's proposals avoid serious scrutiny, except for fawning discussions on CNBC. Right now, all we get are the rolling of eyes :eyes: from economists with no one taking the time to explain why GOP proposals are not teneable.

[hay rick]

43. Republicans don't have a plan.

They have talking points. There can be no comparison of competing plans because the Republicans don't have a plan.

The closest thing to a "plan comparison" from a respected source is the CBO's "bang for a buck" comparison of program elements:

1.73 Temporary increase in Food Stamps
1.64 Expanding Unemployment Benefits
1.59 Increased infrastructure spending
1.36 General aid to State governments
1.29 Payroll tax holiday
1.26 Refundable lump sum tax rebate
1.03 Across the Board Tax cut
1.02 Non-refundable lump sum tax rebate
0.48 Extend AMT patch
0.37 Make dividend and capital gains cuts permanent
0.30 Cut in corporate tax rate
0.29 Make Bush tax cuts permanent
0.27 Accelerated depreciation

A chart! Woo-hoo!

I share your concern. The media are unwilling and/or unable to provide the American public with the basic information needed to make responsible decisions. They want to talk about earmarks and pork, but not about aggregate demand. The commercial media's function is not to provide access to information so much as to reinforce ignorance.

[sohndrsmith]

30. Is this the same Krugman who was worried Obama wouldn't go "big enough"?

...huh.

[rockymountaindem]

32. Hardly

Krugman is probably correct in asserting that Obama's plans are not as good as they should be, but at least they will prevent us from completely falling off a cliff. The Republicans, as we've seen over the past 8 years, would take us even farther into the depths.

[sohndrsmith]

33. so - then what does he mean here?

Dec 28 2008
Krugman NYTimes Op-Ed
exerpts:

"No modern American president would repeat the fiscal mistake of 1932, in which the federal government tried to balance its budget in the face of a severe recession. The Obama administration will put deficit concerns on hold while it fights the economic crisis."

"But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future."

"It’s true that the economy is currently shrinking. But that’s the result of a slump in private spending. It makes no sense to add to the problem by cutting public spending, too."

"The priority right now is to fight off the attack of the 50 Herbert Hoovers, and make sure that the fiscal problems of the states don’t make the economic crisis even worse."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html?scp=12&sq=krugman&st=nyt

[hay rick]

40. State balanced budget laws.

Most states are restricted from operating at a deficit. When their tax revenues decline, as they are now, they have to cut spending- witness the recent opera in California. The same thing, on a smaller scale, is happening in many other states. Krugman's article makes the case for increased aid to states, particularly for the food stamp program and Medicaid, as an effective form of stimulus.

[Rowdyboy]

34. I just heard Krugman speak and did not get that impression at all....

He's openly called for a bigger stimulus and bank nationalization so why would he want to promote the Republicans idiocy.

I understand what you are inferring from Krugman's words, I just disagree with your interpretation....

[NorthCarolina]

36. I just watched Krugman on 1600 with David Shuster and he didn't say anything like this

in fact he labeled the GOP proposal of doing nothing as incredibly wrong and uninformed. So, are we purposely looking for reasons, factual or not, to discredit Krugman with the Dems progressive base? Where do these stories arise, and what is their actual purpose?

[Forkboy]

37. This OP is Hannity worthy spin.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Typical DU binary horse shit: those who disagree with "my side" obviously agree with "theirs"

Life is not yes or no, plus or minus, 1 or 0; there are many different paths to take.

Krugman has been VERY clear that the best plan is to spend more and do so immediately and in the form of wages to otherwise unemployed people. Much as he's disenchanted with Obama's stimulus plan as woefully anemic, he'd jump up and down in a fit at the Republican's idiocy on this point.

The deep, deep need to tidy up the world and lump all heretics into one dismissable group is as antithetical to thinking as religion is. The need to further glorify President Obama by marginalizing his critics is foolish and tiresome.

[Median Democrat]

44. Are Obama's Plans Better Than GOP's Proposals? Or, Are They Both Failures?

This is the discussion we never hear from Krugman? In other words, is Krugman merely saying that Obama's plans need to be more bold, but they are better than anything being offered by the Republicans?

Or, is Krugman saying that Obama's plans are going to fail miserably? If so, then why not adopt the GOP plans as the cheaper failure?

[Sparkly]

45. And he hasn't said anything about Rush Limbaugh's views.

He must be saying Limbaugh is better and Obama's plan is worse. :eyes:

[YvonneCa]

49. Read Krugman's book...

...'Depression Economics.' All your many questions will be answered. ;)

[Telly Savalas]

52. Krugman's dismissal of the GOP as the "party of Beavis and Butthead"

pretty much says all that needs to be said about what the Republicans have to offer.

And you do get that there are degrees of failure, don't you?

[PurityOfEssence]

56. Can it be any more obvious?

Krugman is for BIG and IMMEDIATE expenditures to fan the embers and throw on some logs. Does he need to say specifically that Obama's policies here are better than the lunacy of the right?

He's made you mad for questioning Obama's policies, and he's had many troubles with Obama for character issues and tactics for the past year. Think what you may, but conflating your villains like this doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Captain Hilts]

48. I know. The whole point of being a Dem is to understand that a lot of things are Grey, not just B&W

[RoyGBiv]

41. Unhinged ...

Dearlord ...

[opihimoimoi]

51. Don't they know by NOW...NEVER TRUST THEM PUBS

8 years of screwed up decisions by Bush and supported by the GOP...all wrong...

and they want us to listen to THEM???

hardly

[paulk]

53. your conclusion is absurd.

:eyes:

[amborin]

54. too bad

you utterly fail to realize how disasterous GOP solutions would be

and how vehemently Krugman condemns gop solutions.....

[crimsonblue]

55. What an idiotic argument....

This is a false comparison. First of all, Krugman never enumerates the monetary consequences of either the Dem or Repub plans failing.. He doesn't even take the time to analyze the republican plan, because it is guaranteed to fail. The republicans want only monetary policy, which is absolutely useless at this point. Take your baseless hatred of Krugman somewhere else, and grow a spine about Obama. He isn't God, and yes, even he can have bad ideas. Jesus Christ, you're pathetic.

[bertman]

57. Thanks to all who have gone on record here as saying that this OP is inane.

It is NOT an ATTACK to question a President's policy(ies).

Krugman is NOT A POLITICIAN, A BANKER, OR A STOCK BROKER. He's an academic who studies how financial matters affect and are affected by government acts AND vice versa. He doesn't have to kiss any politicians' ass and act like he's all happy about a policy that he thinks is wrong. Thank Dog we have people like him.

I wish he'd get more ear time from the likes of Geithner, Summers, and President Obama.

[johnlucas]

58. Krugman is a glorified Monday morning quarterback

Just like all of us. Yes, he DOES have more training in that field but just like us he's not in the trenches getting things done. All he can do like we can do is give out his suggestions. He may be peeved that he didn't get picked for Obama's cabinet, who knows?

It takes more than a topline plan to make it out of the confusion that is Congress. You have to have a plan & an agreement from all those self-serving politicians to make it happen. The best way to put pressure on the laws is to have the people put pressure on their representatives. But of course you know that's much easier said than done.

All I know is that Krugman's word ain't gospel. For all we know he could be a plant given his position for the interest of some powerful folks who run the media.
John Lucas

[Forkboy]

67. "For all we know he could be a plant"

He could be a Venusian for all we know as well.

Bet neither of us can prove it.

[uberllama42]

59. Are we all happy now that Krugman said a spending freeze would "destroy the economy"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x281921

[Median Democrat]

63. Woopty Doo! Less Than One Minute - Lets Have A Freakin Column!

Is Krugman just lazy? Is this why he is cutting and pasting his columns and criticisms of the stimulus as being too small. Why doesn't he try writing something new like explaining why a spending freeze is stupid AND what are the consequences of imposing such a spending freeze in the middle of a recession.

[YvonneCa]

85. Krugman is far from lazy. I'd advise reading his books, starting with...

..."Depression Economics." In that book, he wrote about the causes of our current situation AND what he thinks is needed to get us out of it. He set out the economic theory about the Great Depression and other recessions and compared our current situation to them. He talked about the danger of not stopping the downward spiral (job loss, etc.). He wrote his premise before the inauguration, but was presenting his ideas for our new president...sort of as if he were giving advice.

He called for three things. One, the new president had to act rapidly and boldly. Second, he should pass a VERY large stimulus package immediately...VERY LARGE. And three, he should finish the New Deal and do healthcare reform right away. Obama is doing ALL these things. Krugman says that the REAL danger...not to 'go large'...because then the spiral won't be broken and there is a real danger of a worse recession or depression.

Since the inauguration, Krugman has continued to voice his opinion loudly. I think this may be to give Obama 'cover' to act boldly and get these large changes passed. I think this is good. I'm pretty sure he wants Obama to succeed.

I'd also recommend Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal", if you haven't already read it. It's more in depth on the economics, but not very up-to-date. Both books explain a little more about what the country is dealing with. I am NOT very knowledgeable about 'things economic' ...but Krugman is very good at story-telling to explain difficult concepts.

[cadmium]

60. Succumbing to Noise and Panic is never a good idea

When the headlines are all screaming like Jim Cramer. When Republicans start trying to Help with Populism. When everyone gets in a Dither over dithering. That is the time to take a deep breath and stand back. Dont get bullied by the headlines. If Obama plan is to take over some banks, recapitalize others, and let others go down ---he is wise to play cards close to the vest.


But I am less concerned about the merits of the issue here than I am with our herd tendency to jump on the bandwagon of media hysteria.

[northernlights]

61. baloney. Krugman gives political cover

First, Krugman is NOT attacking President Obama. He is criticizing the stimulus plan, not attacking the president. There is a difference.

Second, Krugman's belief that the stimulus needs to be bigger makes President Obama appear centrist as he moves us away from the extreme right. And Krugman's insistance that the stimulus isn't big enough will help Obama get the support (i.e. congressional votes) he needs to get additional stimulus through, asap.

For 20+ years, the ultra conservative wingnuts have been dragging this country hard to the right, to where supposed center became extremely right wing.

Krugman is helping to drag the politicians back to where the majority of the citizens are. By pulling harder to the left, he enables Obama to move the political center back to where the heart of the country is.

[Median Democrat]

64. However, Krugman Does Not Address the Alternatives...

He appears to characterize Obama's economic plans as a failure, which raises the question of whether we should pursue GOP policies as a cheaper failure.

[Better Believe It]

66. What alternative???

You surely don't mean Republican proposals for a spending freeze.

Roubini, Krugman and other credible economists propose much more spending to jolt the economy which is obviously a rejection of and the opposite of Republican spending freezes.

You didn't understand that?

Spending increases vs spending freezes.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Still need some help?

[Median Democrat]

68. Exactly, Snarky Remarks Are Insufficient - CNBC Types Are Giving Them Credibility

What Roubini, Krugman, etc., are failing to do is to describe with some detail the ramifications of adopting the Republican proposals. Calling such proposals "stupid" or "misguided" is not enough. In other words, how many jobs will be lost, and how long would the depression last, if Republican proposals were implemented?

I, of course, agree with them, but I am the freakin choir. Krugman is off berating Obama's economic plans, but in dismissing the GOP plans, he suggests that they are both a failure. What he needs to say is that the GOP alternative is much, much worse. Instead, all he provides are snarky remarks while directing the bulk of his criticism towards Obama.

[Better Believe It]

72. You're nitpicking. Obama should attack the Republican proposals and

advance some proposals that will prevent an economic depression.

Krugman and Roubini state clearly that more spending is needed which is the direct opposite of Republican calls for budget freezes. If you think that most people,including yourself, don't understand the difference you must think people are stupid.

Let me try to lay it out for you.

Budget increases (Krugman, Roubini) vs budget freeze (Republican leaders).

They are in direct conflict.

Get it?

Your just nitpicking and you know that.

CASE CLOSED

[Better Believe It]

75. Krugman: Boehner is Insane and would Destroy America

Are you happy now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8255469

[Median Democrat]

81. Its A Step - A Blog Post - Now Lets See His Friday Opinion

I would like to see some actual number crutching on Republican proposals. Krugman has no problem using his calculator with Obama. However, all we get is a rolling of eyes :eyes: with respect to the Republicans. Heck, McCain is doing Contract on America, Part II, and I am sure it will get a free pass, as the CNBC types happily recite it.

[northernlights]

71. baloney again

Krugman praised Obama's budget to high heavens.

He characterizes Obama's stimulus package as insufficient to do anything more than slow the downslide; nothing more, nothing less. And he fears there won't be more done until September, and that it will be too late.

This opens to the door to near-future stimulus packages. And as it happens, the news has just hit that congress is already considering another stimulus package.

Nobody, including Krugman, knows precisely what will or will not work as stimulus. Obama has said straight out that some parts of the package will work and some parts won't. That leaves the door open to future stimulus that increases funding for parts that work and cuts the parts that don't.

That's likely why Obama took the "scattershot" approach that the MSM has been criticizing. It's a down payment and trial run, with more $$ and refinement in the offing.

Krugman, by saying the stimulus is insufficient, gives Obama political cover to come back for more money. Not to mention that after reading Krugman over and over, Americans will demand more. He's given Obama both grass roots support and political cover for more stimulus. Period.

Krugman never has in any way, shape or form suggested, hinted or intimated that the GOP's tax cuts would be cheaper or better failure. That's in your head, period.

[Better Believe It]

65. Saying Obama's "stimulus" planning is inadequate is a gross understatement

And that is not an attack on President Obama even if some Democrats want to spin that honest assessment that way. Roubini and company have not suggested Republican proposals are better. That's a totally dishonest description of their views. Talk about political spin!!!


The Republicans have no sane plan to prevent a full scale economic depression. We all know that. Do Roubini, Krugman and many other credible economists have to state the obvious while they STFU about what they think needs to be done to save this economy because they don't march to the tune played by Obama's Wall Street advisors?

Roubini calls the "job creation" side of the stimulus plan "puny". Why? Because only about 200 billion dollars will be spent over the next two years for job creation.

Roubini, Krugman and most of the nation's mayors believe that a great deal more needs to be spent for infrastructure and other useful public works projects over the next two years. Do you honestly believe that they therefore support Republican calls for a spending freeze? :) :) Now get serious!

Cities are getting squeezed under the "stimulus" plan. The mayors recovery and infrastruture proposals were ignored and almost totally rejected by the Obama administration!

Have you ever read the National Conference of Mayor's recovery plan that would have cost 149 billion dollars, built 18,000 useful public works projects that would have been completed by the end of 2010 and would have created 1.6 million good paying jobs?

[Median Democrat]

69. Your Own Post Makes My Point - You Say Its "Obvious" That The GOP Plans Are Faulty

Thus, the GOP gets a free pass. Worse, the casual public may begin to believe that if Obama's plan is a costly failure, and the GOP's plan is a cheap failure, then why not give the cheap failure option a chance.

The problem is that we liberals are so assured of the rightness of our positions that we do not even bother to explain our positions to the general public. We assume that it is "obvious" to the public that Republican proposals are crazy.

[Better Believe It]

73. Don't you have a position that is opposed to Krugman & Roubini's proposals?

"The problem is that we liberals are so assured of the rightness of our positions that we do not even bother to explain our positions to the general public."

Tell President Obama that! The public is patient but is confused on his bank plans and other issues. A little clarity please!

Krugman and Roubini have clearly explained their positions to all who aren't listening with their mouths!

What's your position on nationalizing the banks, proposing a new and effective job creating stimulus plan and redoing the mortgages?

I'm part of the general public so explain, clearly please, your position on the above issues?

I'm listening!

[Median Democrat]

76. He Has Been Explaining! No Media Coverage! Have You Seen A Press Conference?

Heck, what about the statement to the Joint Session of Congress? Obama has repeatedly promoted the mortgage plan and his stimulus plan on an almost daily basis. Yet, aside from showing it as it happens, the evening cable is consumed with Republicans reciting their talking points. This is why I think its a travesty for Krugman to give Republicans a free pass on some of the garbage they spew. I know he published a blog entry. Now, lets see an in-depth column on Friday!

[Better Believe It]

77. Obama doesn't know how to use the media? More lame excuses for timidity & inaction

His mortgage plan won't get the job done and the job stimulus plan written by three Republican Senators is pathetic!

And how about all the dilly, dallying around with insolvent banks. Show some leadership! That's what people elected him for.

If Obama proposed some new bold and effective actions like nationalizing the insolvent banks, or proposed a new stimulus plan that actually created a few million jobs this year, do you think that might get on TV or be mentioned in the newspapers?

The claim that Obama "the new Great Communicator" and his media savvy aides just don't know how to use the media and internet to get their points across is total nonsense.

They didn't have any problem in the election campaign. So what happened? Did the media train leave the tracks?

[Median Democrat]

78. Are You Say Saying GE (NBC/CNBC) and News Corp Is Liberal? Heard of Rupert Murdoch?

Yup, I'd like to see Obama issuing orders to Rupert Murdoch's media empire as you suggest. Great to know that DUers have bought into the idea that the media is unbiased, let alone liberal. The media has its own agenda. Heard of Rupert Murdoch? Roger Ailes?

The problem is that DUers mistakenly believe the media is unbiased or liberal. Its not. It is perhaps as big of an impediment as the Republicans.

[YvonneCa]

84. And....

....?

[YvonneCa]

83. Are you just now noticing that the media...

...is against Democrats? That they spin EVERYTHING??? Good morning to you.;)

[fishwax]

70. lol

:crazy:

[CBR]

74. Any other economists...

Are there any other economists we can discuss beside Krugman? I am sick of hearing about him and his analysis -- he is one out of many. I have no problem with a critical analysis of the Pres (I want to hear other criticisms as well) but the obsession with him is nauseating. There is a Prof in my department (environmental economist) who won a Nobel Prize for his work with Al Gore and he has much better personality than Kruggie.

[Danger Mouse]

79. I don't like Krugman, but even I call BS on this argument.

[ncteechur]

80. You have a fever. No way those dunces know anything about the economy.